Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary · Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary ... NIGTC New...
Transcript of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary · Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary ... NIGTC New...
Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary
North California Campus
________________________
“The Servant Motif and Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6”
________________________
By Kyle D. Rapinchuk
________________________
Spring 2012
© 2012 Kyle D. Rapinchuk
iii
CONTENTS
Abbreviations ……………...……………………………………………………………………..iv
Abbreviations of Biblical Books……………………...…………………………………………..v
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………vi
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….....1
Moses in Broader Literary Perspective……………………………………………………………2
Moses in the Old Testament………………………………………………………………2
Moses in Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament………………………………5
Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha……………………………………………………….5
Philo……………………………………………………………………………….6
New Testament……………………………………………………………………8
Moses in Hebrews………………………………………………………………………..10
The Servant Motif in 3:1-6………………………………………………………………………11
Hebrews 3:1-6 in the Structure and Message of Hebrews………………………………11
The Servant Motif in Use of Synkrisis, House, and Servant/Son………………………..14
Synkrisis……………………………………………………………………...…..15
House……………………………………………………………………………16
Servant/Son……………………………………………………………………...19
Moses as qerapwn……………………………………………………………………….21
Proposed Definitions…………………………………………………………….21
Use of qerapwn in the Greek OT, Second Temple Literature, and Hebrews 3 …22
Conclusions and Implications……………………………………………………………………26
Conclusion...……….…………………………………………………………………………….30
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..31
iv
ABBREVIATIONS
Primary Sources
Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha
4 Mac 4 Maccabees
Jdt Judith
Wis Wisdom
Philo
Her Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Who is the Heir of Divine Things)
Ios De Josepho (On Joseph)
Migr Abr De migratione Abrahami (On the Migration of Abraham)
Prob Quod omnis probus liber sit (Every Good Man Is Free )
Sacr De sacrifi ciis Abelis et Caini (On the Sacrifices of Abel and Cain)
Somn De somniis (On Dreams)
Spec De specialibus legibus (On Special Laws)
Vit Mos De vita Mosis (On the Life of Moses)
Apostolic Fathers
1 Cl 1 Clement
Brn Epistle of Barnabas
Secondary Sources
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
NACSBT NAC Studies in Bible and Theology
Commentary Sets
NAC New American Commentary
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NIVAC NIV Application Commentary
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentary
Journals
ExpTimes Expository Times
Int Interpretation
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
NTS New Testament Studies
SwJT Southwestern Journal of Theology
v
ABBREVIATIONS OF BIBLICAL BOOKS
OT Old Testament
Gen Genesis Eccl Ecclesiastes
Ex Exodus Song Song of Solomon
Lev Leviticus Isa Isaiah
Num Numbers Jer Jeremiah
Deut Deuteronomy Lam Lamentations
Josh Joshua Ezek Ezekiel
Ju Judges Dan Daniel
Ru Ruth Hos Hosea
1 Sam 1 Samuel Joel Joel
2 Sam 2 Samuel Amos Amos
1 Kg 1 Kings Ob Obadiah
2 Kg 2 Kings Jon Jonah
1 Chr 1 Chronicles Mic Micah
2 Chr 2 Chronicles Nah Nahum
Ezra Ezra Hab Habakkuk
Neh Nehemiah Zeph Zephaniah
Esth Esther Hag Haggai
Job Job Zech Zechariah
Ps Psalms Mal Malachi
Prov Proverbs
NT New Testament
Mt Matthew 1 Tim 1 Timothy
Mk Mark 2 Tim 2 Timothy
Lk Luke Titus Titus
Jn John Ph Philemon
Acts Acts Heb Hebrews
Rom Romans Ja James
1 Cor 1 Corinthians 1 Pet 1 Peter
2 Cor 2 Corinthians 2 Pet 2 Peter
Gal Galatians 1 Jn 1 John
Eph Ephesians 2 Jn 2 John
Phil Philippians 3 Jn 3 John
Col Colossians Jude Jude
1 Th 1 Thessalonians Rev Revelation
2 Th 2 Thessalonians
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Comparison of Hebrews 3:5 and Numbers 12:7………………………………………25
1
The Servant Motif and Moses in Hebrews 3:16
Introduction
The interest in the book of Hebrews as the object of scholarly study has dramatically
increased in the past century. What was once an object of little interest has in many circles
become a primary focus. Though much of the debate revolves around the unending question of
the authorship of the book,1 new interest in the structure2 and theology3 of the book are growing
as well. Among the many new studies on the book of Hebrews, however, few deal with the role
of Moses in the book. As late as 1979, Peter Jones pointed out that there were no full length
monographs on the subject of Moses in Hebrews.4 In that same year, Mary Rose D’Angelo
published her dissertation entitled Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews.5 Yet since that time, few
additional studies have specifically explored the role of Moses in the book. Still fewer have dealt
1Among the most recent examples, see David Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews, NACSBT 8 (Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2010).
2George Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994; Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1998); Cynthia Westfall, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship
between Form and Meaning (London: T&T Clark, 2005).
3Richard Bauckham, et al., eds, The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2009); Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, New Testament Theology
(Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991).
4Peter Rhea Jones, “The Figure of Moses as a Heuristic Device for Understanding the Pastoral Intent of
Hebrews,” Review and Expositor 76.1 (1979): 95.
5Mary Rose D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, SBL Dissertation Series 42 (Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1979).
2
exclusively with the role of Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6.6 The purpose of this essay is to explore the
servant motif as applied to Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6. More specifically, this paper will attempt to
define the manner in which Moses is called a servant in God’s house. To accomplish this task,
this essay is divided into three sections. The first section focuses on Moses in broader literary
perspective, exploring Moses in the Old Testament, Second Temple literature and the New
Testament, and finally in Hebrews, paying particular attention to Moses’ role as servant in each.
In the second section, the focus will shift specifically to the servant motif in Hebrews 3:1-6. In
this section, the paper will consider the role of the passage in the structure of Hebrews, explore
the development of the motif in the passage itself, and conclude with an analysis of the meaning
of qerapwn. The final section will develop some of the theological and exegetical implications of
the conclusions drawn in the earlier sections.7
Moses in Broader Literary Perspective
The appearance of Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6 is by no means an isolated occurrence. Moses
figures prominently in the Old Testament and Second Temple literature (including the New
Testament), in addition to his role in Hebrews.
Moses in the Old Testament
Moses, along with David, is one of the most important figures in the Old Testament. One
6Pierre Auffret, “Essai sur la structure litteraire et l’interpretation d’Hebreux 3, 1-6,” NTS 26.3 (1980): 380-
396; Erich von Gräβer, “Mose und Jesus: Zur Auslengung von Hebr 3.1-6,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 75.1-2 (1984): 2-23; Brett R. Scott, “Jesus’ Superiority over Moses
in Hebrews 3:1-6,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (Apr-Jn 1998): 201-210; Cynthia Westfall, “Moses and Hebrews 3.1-6:
Approach or Avoidance?,” in Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries, 175-201, eds. Stanley E. Porter
and Brook W.R. Pearson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000).
7I am grateful to Dr. George Guthrie for his substantial help in the organization of this essay. Most of the
headings are included by his suggestion.
3
could conclude this simply by how often he is mentioned by name in the Old Testament—756
times, second only to David’s 1020 times.8 Yet Moses’ influence far surpasses mere frequent
mention. Not only is Moses a prophet, but he was a prophet who spoke to YHWH face to face, a
designation so unique that it is said of Moses that no prophet has arisen like him since, who
YHWH knew face to face (Deut 18:15-18; 34:10-12). Similarly, not only was Moses a leader of
the people of Israel, but he was also their mediator and intercessor. When the people were afraid
to approach the mountain because of the presence of YHWH, they sent Moses (Ex. 20:18-21).
When YHWH planned to destroy them for their wickedness with the golden calf, Moses
interceded on their behalf (Ex. 32:11-14). As the one who received the Law from YHWH and
gave it to the people, Moses is often called the “founder” of the Israelite’s Yahwistic religion.9
Yet despite his role as Israel’s greatest prophet, Moses himself pointed not to himself but to a
prophet to come to whom the people were to listen (Deut 18:15).
In addition to these portraits of Moses is the helpful recognition of and reflection on his
two common titles: man of God and servant of God. The designation man of God (Heb.
~yhil{a/h' vyai)10 is used seventy-six times in the Old Testament, six in reference to Moses.11 All
but three occurrences of the word are in the “historical books” (Joshua-Esther). Of the three
exceptions—Deuteronomy 33:1, Psalm 90:1, and Jeremiah 35:4—the first two refer to Moses.
The other uses of man of God, likely including the Jeremiah 35 passage, regularly refer to
8Search conducted with BibleWorks 7.0. All subsequent searches are also from BibleWorks 7.0.
9John Van Seters, “Moses,” in Encyclopedia of Religion, Second Edition, Volume 9, ed. Lindsay Jones
(Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2005), 6200-6202.
10Including the occurrences of near identical parallels such as ~yhil{a/-vyaii.
11Deut 33:1; Josh 14:6; 1 Chr 23:14; 2 Chr 30:16; Ezra 3:2; Ps 90:1.
4
prophets. It is reasonable then to conclude that Moses’ title as man of God points to his prophetic
role. His second title, servant, occurs a total of forty-two times. The most common use is the
servant of YHWH (hw"hy>-db,[,). Twenty-two of the forty-two uses appear in this form. The title
servant also shows up nearly equally in first, second, and third person uses—my servant, your
servant, and his servant. My servant occurs eight times, your servant seven times, and his servant
five times.
The question that naturally arises is what precisely these designations of Moses as servant
mean. Patrick Miller has argued that “a significant feature of the Deuteronomic profile of Moses
is his teaching activity.”12 While elsewhere Moses is seen only as the mediator of the law, Miller
notes that Deuteronomy alone portrays Moses as the teacher and transmitter of the law, yet it
does so clearly and consistently.13 Like Miller, Frank Spina argues that the servant title for
Moses, and for his successor Joshua, highlights the role of Moses and Joshua as “preachers and
interpreters of Torah.”14 The fact that at least eleven of the references to Moses as servant are
followed by the verb commanded (hwc) is perhaps a good indication that Miller and Spina are
warranted in their assessment. This seems also to be the case in Joshua 11:15 when it says that
“just as YHWH had commanded Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and so Joshua did.”
There is a clear sequence of YHWH commanding His servants who in turn command and teach
the people. The servant of YHWH, then, is one who teaches, trains, and instructs the people in
the law, and Moses is an exemplar of this in the highest respect. Moreover, Moses’ role as
12Patrick D. Miller, “‘Moses my Servant’: The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses,” Int 41.3 (1987): 246.
13Ibid., 247.
14Frank Anthony Spina, “Moses and Joshua: Servants of the Lord as Purveyors of the Word,” in Go Figure!
Figuration in Biblical Interpretation, ed. Stanley D. Walters, Princeton Theological Monograph Series (Eugene,
OR: Pickwick Publications, 2008), 65-92.
5
servant goes beyond mere instruction but extends to his intercession. John Van Seters proposes
that Moses’ role as servant emphasized his “function as intercessor for his people and as one who
suffered and died on their behalf.”15
Moses in Second Temple Judaism and the New Testament
Based on the evidence presented above, it is reasonable to conclude that the Old
Testament picture of Moses is one of a great prophet and teacher. As the literature moved into
the period between the testaments (hereafter referred to as Second Temple literature), these
themes not only continued, but were in fact built upon into a vibrant portrait of Moses. Far from
forgetting about Moses in the midst of the return from Exile, the post-exilic community through
to the first century A.D. venerated Moses in many respects. Second Temple literature is replete
with examples of such veneration. The following section will briefly survey some of the
literature that points to this high view of Moses in Second Temple Judaism. While the survey is
by no means exhaustive, it ought to be sufficient to provide the reader with some examples and
trajectories that continued through to the time of the apostles.
Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha
Numerous examples of the veneration of Moses are present in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha. Though a favorable view of Moses is consistent in Second Temple literature,
the degree to which Moses is venerated varies. For example, Wisdom of Solomon refers to
Moses as a “holy prophet” (Wis 11:1) in addition to calling him “servant” (Wis 10:16). 4
Maccabees goes further in calling Moses “our counselor” (4 Mac 9:2). First Enoch 89.36-38
identifies Moses as a sheep who builds a dwelling place for the other sheep, but must die in order
15Van Seters, “Moses,” 6203.
6
to lead them to the better land. One of the more direct examples of this high view of Moses is
found in Sirach 45:1-3. Here, the author writes:
From his descendants the Lord brought forth a man of mercy, who found favor in the
sight of all flesh and was beloved by God and man, Moses, whose memory is blessed. 2
He made him equal in glory to the holy ones, and made him great in the fears of his
enemies. 3 By his words he caused signs to cease; the Lord glorified him in the presence
of kings. (RSV)
Thus, while the degree to which Moses is venerated varies, he is consistently seen in a positive
light, a holy prophet who served YHWH faithfully.
Philo
Philo continues the high view of Moses in his writings. In fact, he begins his recounting
of the life of Moses with the claim that Moses was “the greatest and most perfect man that ever
lived.”16 Philo describes how Moses, from the moment he was born through childhood,
“displayed a more beautiful and noble form than usual,”17 was admired for “his elegant form and
healthy vigorous appearance,”18 and looked “more perfect than could have been expected at his
age.”19 With respect to knowledge, Moses was also superior to other children. Philo writes that
“in a short time he surpassed all their [masters/tutors] knowledge, anticipating all their lessons by
the excellent natural endowments of his own genius” and he “comprehended by his instinctive
16Philo, Vit Mos, 1.1.
17Ibid., 1.9
18Ibid., 1.15
19Ibid., 1.19
7
genius many difficult subjects.”20 Still further, Philo asserts Moses to be high priest in numerous
places.21 Finally, Philo at times gives Moses divine qualities. In De Vita Mosis he writes:
What more shall I say? Has he not also enjoyed an even greater communion with the
Father and Creator of the universe, being thought unworthy of being called by the same
appellation? For he also was called the god and king of the whole nation, and he is said to
have entered into the darkness where God was; that is to say, into the invisible, and
shapeless, and incorporeal world, the essence, which is the model of all existing things,
where he beheld things invisible to mortal nature; for, having brought himself and his
own life into the middle, as an excellently wrought picture, he established himself as a
most beautiful and God-like work, to be a model for all those who were inclined to
imitate him.22
Similarly in De Somniis he writes:
“For when," the scripture says, "the high priest goes into the Holy of Holies he will not
be a man." [Leviticus xvi. 17.] What then will he be if he is not a man? Will he be God? I
would not venture to say that (for the chief prophet, Moses, did receive the inheritance of
this name while he was still in Egypt, being called "the god of Pharaoh;") [Exodus vii. 1]
nor again is he man, but he touches both these extremities as if he touched both the feet
and the head.23
20Vit Mos, 1.22
21Ibid. 1.334; 2.2-7, 153-158, 187, 275; Her 182; Sacr 130. These are pointed out in Paul Ellingworth, The
Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 194.
22Vit Mos 1.158.
23Somn 2.189.
8
Thus, while Philo maintains the Second Temple view of Moses as high priest and greatest
amongst the prophets, he far exceeds their high view of Moses with his claim that Moses is near
divine.24
Despite Philo’s high view of Moses, he does allow for the designation of servant to
Moses, though at a much more infrequent rate than the Old Testament. One clear designation of
Moses as servant in Philo is found in De Migratione Abrahami where he calls Moses “the
faithful servant of God.”25
New Testament
The name Moses occurs seventy-eight times in the New Testament, though most of these
occurrences are with respect to Moses’ relationship to or association with the law. However,
there are numerous occasions where Moses is recognized as a person for comparison or
reference. One of the more significant appearances of Moses in the New Testament is his literal
appearance (with Elijah) on the Mount of Transfiguration.26 In each of the three parallel accounts
of the Transfiguration Moses and Elijah appear and speak with Jesus before ultimately
disappearing. Florence Gillman suggests Moses and Elijah function as foils to Jesus. They are
representatives of Old Israel, and they disappear; Jesus is the representative of the New, and he
remains alone.27 More significantly, however, it is not to Moses and Elijah that the Father
24Wayne Meeks identifies these three categories (divine, high priest, and prophet) as well as a fourth:
Moses as Prophet. For a more detailed explanation of the way that Philo portrays Moses according to these four
categories, see Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1967), 100-130. Meeks also explores how Josephus and the Apocrypha view Moses in the rest of Part III,
“Moses in Non-Rabbinic Jewish Sources,” 131-215.
25Migr Abr 1.67.
26Parallel accounts in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9.
27Florence Morgan Gillman, “Moses: New Testament,” in ABD, Volume 4: K-N, ed. David Noel Freedman
(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 919.
9
speaks, but to His Son alone. The Father’s proclamation about His beloved Son in each Gospel
is “Listen to him.”28 It is interesting, then, that Moses is present since he has already born
witness to the prophet to whom the people are to listen (Deut 18:15).
Another key text for understanding Moses in the New Testament is Stephen’s speech in
Acts 7. Nine of the occurrences of Moses’ name are used in this passage.29 In Stephen’s speech,
Moses is a key figure in God’s salvation of Israel from slavery in the land of Egypt. He is said to
be “beautiful in God’s sight” (Acts 7:20) and “instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”
(Acts 7:22), and yet when God sent him to deliver the people from slavery, the rejected him
(7:35) and refused to obey him (7:39). Thus, Stephen seems to be setting up Moses as the type of
Jesus, specifically as the prophet (7:37-38//Deut 18:18) rejected by his people.30 Moses is
therefore regarded as a positive, comparable example to Jesus as one of God’s prophets who is
rejected.
Despite these comparison, there does seem to be some level of contrast also between
Moses and Jesus in the New Testament, evident especially in John 1:17. Here the author writes,
“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” So while
Jesus is a prophet like Moses, there is in John’s mind a distinction between the two prophets in
the content (and perhaps efficacy) of the message.
One interesting point regarding the appearance of Moses in the New Testament is that he
only receives a title two times—Hebrews 3:5 and Revelation 15:3. In both cases he is called a
28Mt 17:5; Mk 9:7; Lk 9:35.
29There are also ten other occurrences of Moses’ name in Acts, for nineteen total. These nineteen
occurrences account for nearly one quarter of the references to Moses in the New Testament.
30Gillman, “Moses,” 919; Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts
(Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1977), 70-76.
10
servant, though the word used is Hebrews is qerapwn while the word in Revelation is douloj.
After the common attribution of the titles servant of God and (to a lesser extent) man of God in
the Old Testament, it is interesting that these are the only two times Moses is given a title. The
first title occurs in Hebrews 3 and will be explored in the next section. Regarding the second
title, found in Revelation 15, Moses himself is not present, but the ones who conquer the beast
play harps on the edge of the sea of glass and sign the song of Moses, the servant of God. Unlike
the songs of Moses in Exodus 15 or Deuteronomy 31, this song is quite short, but its focus is on
the greatness of God’s deeds, the justice of His ways, and the proclamation that all nations will
come to worship Him because His righteous acts have been revealed. While the passage has
much to say about God’s glory and His blessing to the nations, it does little to develop the
manner in which Moses is servant. Instead, like the song itself, it seems to be alluding to Old
Testament images and texts, many of which call Moses servant.
Moses in Hebrews
Moses appears in the book of Hebrews eleven times. Only one of these occurrences
(10:28) is in a reference to the Law of Moses; the other ten refer to Moses as an individual. In
7:14, the author reminds the reader that Moses said nothing about a priest from the tribe of
Judah, the tribe from which Jesus comes. The uses in 8:5 and 9:19 reference Moses’ actions with
respect to the erection of the tent and the sprinkling of blood on the book and the people. Two
uses in chapter 11 relate Moses’ faith (11:23-24), and 12:21 relates Moses’ statement that he
trembled in fear. Though each of these occurrences come in different contexts, one can see how
Moses, as the leader of Israel and mediator of the Old Covenant, is a key figure to consider in a
discussion of Jesus Christ and his eternal priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.
11
The other four appearances of Moses in Hebrews are in chapter 3. One comes in 3:16 in
which the author identifies those who heard and rebelled as the wilderness generation that Moses
led out of Egypt. The other three occurrences are in the passage with which this study concerns
itself: Hebrews 3:1-6. A full development of the role of Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6 will take
considerable explanation, but it is first necessary to speak of the role of Hebrews 3:1-6 in the
structure and message of the book of Hebrews.
The Servant Motif in 3:1-6
In the attempt to develop Moses and the servant motif in Hebrews 3:1-6, this section will
consider the role of the passage in the structure and message of the book, then develop the motif
in the passage itself, and finally consider the various interpretations of qerapwn.
Hebrews 3:1-6 in the Structure and Message of Hebrews
The structure of the book of Hebrews has been an object of much interest over past half
century. The interest began for many with the 1963 publication of Albert Vanhoye’s work, La
Structure Littéraire de L'épître Aux Hébreux.31 Vanhoye’s understanding of the structure of the
book has been extremely influential on the study of Hebrews and the direction taken by further
discussions on structure. More recently, two alternative understandings of the structure, both
involving discourse and text-linguistic analysis, have made significant contributions to the
debate.32 Though these two contributors, George Guthrie and Cynthia Westfall, employ similar
methods and terminology, there are numerous differences in their work. Of particular interest for
31Albert Vanhoye, La Structure Littéraire de L'épître Aux Hébreux, Second Edition (Paris: Dessclée de
Brouwer, 1976).
32Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews; Westfall, A Discourse Analysis.
12
this study is the role that 3:1-6 plays in the structure, a key point of departure for Westfall from
Guthrie.33
Guthrie recognizes a high-level cohesion shift between Hebrews 2:18 and 3:1. A high-
level cohesion shift is any turning point in the book marked by eight or more shifts in the
cohesion fields of genre, topic, spatial indicator, temporal indicator, actor, subject, verb tense,
mood, person, number, reference, and lexical items.34 This cohesion shift, especially the switch
from third to second person, the movement from the Son to the community, and the use of the
imperative, move the passage from exposition to exhortation. Guthrie provides further support
for a structural boundary between 2:18 and 3:1 when he follows Vanhoye’s recognition of an
inclusio at 3:1 and 4:14. Guthrie argues convincingly for this inclusio based on the occurrence of
the terms or topics Jesus, high priest, forms of heaven, and confession in both verses.35 Guthrie
summarizes this exhortation as “Jesus, the Supreme Example of a Faithful Son,” which is
immediately followed by “The Negative Example of Those Who Fell through Faithlessness” in
verses 7-19.36 These two passages lead into the promise of rest for the faithful and a warning to
consider the power of God’s word, which closes out the first part of the book.
Cynthia Westfall argues that the use of o[qen in 3:1 expresses a causal relationship, and
thus serves as a “conclusion or summary and signals that the material is logically dominant.”37
33For example, she specifically notes her departure from Guthrie on the relationship between 2:18 and 3:1,
claiming that Guthrie “misses the semantic weight of inferential conjunctions such as o[qen” [Westfall, Discourse
Analysis, 111, n. 89].
34Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 59.
35Ibid., 78.
36See structural chart in Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 144.
37Westfall, “Moses and Hebrews 3.1-6,” 190.
13
Rather than marking a cohesion shift, Westfall sees the nominative of direct address as marked
prominence.38 This prominence is marked further by extra words describing the readers and
Jesus and the command “to think intently.”39 Westfall suggests that verse two is subordinate to
verse one and serves as support material, namely the starting point of the comparison between
Moses and Jesus. Verse three then extends the comparison, but uses the conjunction gar as
subtraction to show that while Moses and Jesus are both faithful, Jesus is worthy of more glory.40
She goes on to argue that “Moses is a highly respected person with whom Jesus is favorably
compared.”41 The purpose of the comparison, according to Westfall, is that a comparison of
Moses and Jesus leads to the comparison of the houses. The community addressed in 3:1 and 6 is
the house of Jesus Christ which is in danger of falling into the same hardness of heart as Moses’
house, identified as the wilderness generation.42 In Westfall’s view, the role of 3:1-6 is to
“emphasize the readers’ partnership with Jesus, which is introduced in 3.1 and enhanced by a
comparison” using the dominant word oikoj.43
In assessing the two views, it seems that Westfall’s detailed explanation of how verses 7-
19 fit with 1-6 is convincing. The lack of mention of Moses’ house in verse six only seems to
support the already evident parallel between Jesus and Moses and their houses. Thus, Westfall is
likely correct that the author of Hebrews intends to show that his readers face the same
38Westfall, “Moses and Hebrews 3.1-6,” 190.
39Ibid.
40Ibid., 187-188.
41Ibid., 191.
42Ibid., 199-201.
43Ibid., 189-190.
14
opportunity for the hardening of hearts as the wilderness generation (i.e. Moses’ house).44
However, Westfall’s criticism of Guthrie’s cohesion shift is unconvincing. On the one hand,
Westfall marshals little other evidence then the function of o[qen, which by itself is hardly
convincing. On the other hand, Guthrie’s argument has both lexical and contextual support. As
noted above, the evidence for an inclusio between 3:1 and 4:13 is convincing, which in itself
would mark a structural break between 2:18 and 3:1. Additionally, there is strong contextual
support for Guthrie’s conclusion. His position helps explain the mention of Jesus as high priest in
2:17 and 3:1 and then not again until 4:14-15. It seems that the author, having mentioned how
Jesus as high priest helps not angels but the offspring of Abraham (2:16-17), found it necessary
to warn his readers of the danger of becoming like Moses’ generation and proving themselves to
be something other than the offspring of Abraham. Once the author has presented this warning
through a comparison of Jesus and Moses and their respective houses, only then can he return to
the way in which Jesus is the great High Priest. The inclusio makes this plausible, and Guthrie’s
additional support of a cohesion shift seems to make it probable. Therefore, the role of Hebrews
3:1-6 in the structure of the book seems to be in line with Guthrie’s argument that the author has
moved from exposition to exhortation, and with Westfall’s view that this exhortation is to warn
the community of believers, the house of Jesus Christ, not to be like the wilderness generation,
the house of Moses.
The Servant Motif in Use of Synkrisis, House, and Servant/Son
Though the word servant is found only one time in 3:1-6, it finds expression in the
context of the passage in three complementary ways: synkrisis, house, and servant/son. This
44Ibid., 200-201.
15
section will explore the servant motif in each of these three ways in order to present a unified
picture of the servant motif in 3:1-6.
Synkrisis
The term synkrisis in reference to Hebrews refers to a literary use of comparison that
conforms to Greco-Roman epideictic oratory.45 Greco-Roman epideictic oratory is based on
Aristotle’s Rhetoric. In this work, Aristotle defines this type of oratory as the comparison of one
person with another illustrious person, “for it affords the ground for amplification and is noble, if
he [the subject] can be proved to be better than men of worth.”46 With an understanding in place
of what synkrisis is, the next question to answer is why Moses is the one to whom Christ is
compared. There are numerous answers that scholars have given to this question. One argument
is that Moses is chosen because the author is in fact employing a polemic against Moses and the
Moses “christologies” that were popular at the time.47 However, this paper has already discussed
how Moses is not portrayed in a bad light; rather, he seems to get a relatively positive treatment
and is upheld as a good model for comparison. A better explanation for choosing Moses as the
model for comparison is the fact that Moses alone among the Old Testament prophets spoke to
YHWH face to face (or mouth to mouth) and beheld His glory. Thus, Luke Timothy Johnson
states it well when he writes, “Moses is surely the main figure to whom Jesus must be
45George Guthrie, “Hebrews in Its First-Century Contexts,” in The Face of New Testament Studies: A
Survey of Recent Research, ed. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 420.
For more on synkrisis in Hebrews, see Timothy W. Seid, “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and
Strategy,” in The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, ed. Stanley E.
Porter and D.L. Stamps, JSNTSup 180 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 322-347.
46Aristotle, The Art of Rhetoric, ed. and trans. Hugh Lawson-Tancred (New York: Penguin, 1992), 1.9.38-
39.
47See pages 5-6 for discussion of the veneration of Moses and Moses “christologies” in Second Temple
literature.
16
compared.”48 Similarly, R.E. Clements asserts that “the concern for a truly Christ-centered
interpretation of the Old Testament raised inevitably consideration of the question of the relative
position of Jesus and Moses as bearers of the divine revelation to mankind.”49 One final addition
can be made to complement Johnson and Clements’ conclusions. In addition to recognizing
Moses as the great Old Testament prophet and bearer of divine revelation, Moses is also an
excellent subject for comparison because of the emphasis on house. As the leader of the people
of Israel, Moses’ house provides a rich example to compare to the reality of Christ’s house. The
exact nature of this emphasis on house, however, requires more elaboration.
House
As Westfall has noted, oikoj is the key word of Hebrews 3:1-6.50 Besides the fact that
this word is repeated seven times in the passage, it is also prominent in that the word only occurs
four times in the rest of the book. Such a high concentration in this passage marks a prominent
theme.
The first occurrence of oikoj in the passage (3:2) comes in the introduction of a
comparison between Jesus and Moses. He urges the readers to consider Jesus, “who was faithful
to him who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house.” Most commentators
immediately point out an allusion here to Numbers 12:7, which states “Not so with my servant
Moses. He is faithful in all my house.” However, both Sverre Aalen and Mary Rose D’Angelo
argue that the allusion to Numbers 12:7, while in the periphery here, is not primary until verse
48Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary, New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2006), 108.
49Ronald E. Clements, “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews,” SwJT 28.1 (Fall 1985): 40.
50Westfall, “Moses and Hebrews 3:1-6,” 189.
17
five.51 Rather, Aalen argues that verse two is an allusion to 1 Chronicles 17:14.52 Though not
immediately clear in the comparison of the Greek texts, he notes how the Targum has “inserted
the word 'faithful (sure)' (!myhm) in the closing verse, thereby thinking of the Messianic
descendant of David.”53 He also suggests that the application of “faithful” to Christ (the Son) in
Hebrews 3:5 leaves open the possibility that both Christ and God are the builder of the house, a
reading that is also possible in 1 Chronicles 17:10-14.54 He concludes that “Hebrews has hereby
interpreted the word 'house' in v. 14 as the people or congregation of God.”55 D’Angelo builds
upon Aalen’s argument with a lengthy treatment of why 1 Chronicles 17 is more likely in view.
Among the many arguments set forward, two of the key arguments are the verbal similarities
between 1 Chronicles’ pistw,sw and Hebrews’ pisto.n o;nta and the text critical argument that
o[lw| does not belong in the original.56 Since o[lw| is in the Numbers 12:7 text, it is easier to
explain why it would be added57 then to explain its absence in several manuscripts.58
The conclusion of D’Angelo and Aalen’s argument that 1 Chronicles 17 is in view has
significant implications for an understanding of house in this passage. In order to understand the
51Sverre Aalen, “‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in Kingdom of God in the Gospels,” NTS 8.3 (Apr 1962): 236;
D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 70.
52Aalen, “‘Reign’ and ‘House,’” 236.
53Ibid.
54Ibid., 236-237.
55Ibid., 237.
56D’Angelo, Moses in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 72-73.
57If the transmitter of the text saw Numbers 12:7 in view then he may add it to more closely correspond to
the LXX version of that text.
58D’Angelo lists p13.46 vidB, the Coptic versions, Ambrose, and Cyril as manuscripts omitting o[lw|. [Ibid.,
73, n.14].
18
full extent of this significance, however, one must explore the other uses of house in this
passage. Verses three and four mention house three times. It is first said that Jesus is accorded
more glory than Moses in the same manner that the builder of a house has more glory than the
house itself. The next verse identifies the builder of the house (indeed all things) as God.
Initially, this comment is perhaps a bit confusing. On the one hand, God is clearly the builder
both of Jesus’ house and Moses’ house. Yet Jesus also seems to be the builder of the house in
verse three. Guthrie suggests that since Jesus, as God, made Moses, he is worthy of more glory
than Moses because one is the Creator and the other is his creation.59 While Guthrie is certainly
correct, there also seems to be the intentional ambiguity mentioned above regarding who would
build the house in 1 Chronicles 17. Thus, Jesus is worthy of glory not only because he is the
creator of the house of which Moses is only a part, but also because Jesus is the expected builder
of the messianic house in opposition to Moses’ house, identified in Hebrews 3:7-19 as the
wilderness generation.60 Verses 5-6a include two more uses of house, this time in a parallel
construction. Moses is said to be faithful in God’s house as a servant, while Jesus is said to
faithful over God’s house as a son. The servant/son relationship will be discussed in the next
section, but the emphasis here is on the one in God’s house and the one over God’s house. Many
commentators note this distinction as a clear contrast between Moses and Jesus, and rightfully
so. However, there seems to be more at stake here than many commentators allow or recognize.
Scott Layton has observed that the phrase tybh-l[ (rva) (“over the house”) is not merely an
explanatory phrase, but is actually a title for a position. The tybh-l[ (rva) was a royal
steward, an office which grew in importance and eventually became a senior administrator and
59Guthrie, The Structure of Hebrews, 65, n.19.
60See discussion of Westfall on pages 12-13 above.
19
one of the highest officials in the state.61 In applying this understanding to the passage in
Hebrews 3, Layton suggests that Jesus, as the one over God’s house, is being depicted as a
steward over God’s house.62
The final use of house in 3:1-6 is in 6b—“And we are his house if indeed we hold fast
our confidence and our boasting in our hope.” This house is the house of the Son, Jesus Christ,
who is both the builder and steward of the house. As mentioned earlier, it is interesting that there
is no mention of Moses’ house here. One may expect a further contrast with the house of Christ.
There is in fact a contrast, but it is not simply a brief mention; it is instead a longer exhortation
not to be like the wilderness generation that hardened their hearts (3:7-19).
Having now considered each of the seven uses of house in this passage, it is possible to
return to the significance of the reference to the Davidic covenant in 1 Chronicles 17. There are
two key defining features of Moses’ house. First, they hardened their hearts with unbelief.
Hebrews 3:19 is clear that the generation in the wilderness was defined by a hard heart of
unbelief (avpisti,an). The second key defining feature is the punishment for this unbelief—they
are unable to enter God’s rest. With this in mind, the reference to the Davidic covenant is both
more likely and more significant because of the emphasis on God’s provision of rest for his
61Scott C. Layton, “The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew (‘aser) ‘al-habbayit in its Near
Eastern Setting,” JBL 109 (1990): 649.
62Scott C. Layton, “Christ over His House (Hebrews 3.6) and Hebrew tybh-l[ rva.” NTS 37 (1991):
476.
20
Davidic king (2 Sam 7:11).63 As D. Stephen Long summarizes it, “Hebrews sees Jesus as ‘the
Son’ who fulfills the promise to David and gives God’s house ‘rest.’”64
Servant/Son
The final and most explicit development of the servant motif is the servant/Son
distinction. The servant and Son distinction in the passage is closely related to the issue of house.
Numerous commentators point out that Moses is a servant in God’s house while Christ is a Son
over God’s house. The emphasis noted in the previous section about the contrast between the one
in the house and the one over the house is often extended to include the contrast between a
servant and a son. This contrast receives further support from other biblical literature, namely the
parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-46; cf. Mk 12:1-12; Lk 20:9-19). Westfall appeals to
this parable to show that “respect and honor for the father as owner or builder was expected to be
imputed to the son.”65 Such a conclusion would suggest that while Moses certainly is a valued
servant in God’s house in Hebrews 3, he does not receive the same glory as the Son because only
the Son possesses the same honor and respect as the Father.
Another possible implication of the servant and son distinction that arises out of this
parable is the role of the son as “servant.” While the son is not portrayed as a servant, he is
nevertheless sent on the same errand in the service of his father as the servants are sent
previously. This suggests that while the expectation is that the son will receive better treatment
because of his relationship to the father, he nevertheless can still serve his father in various
63Though “rest” is not in 1 Chronicles 17, God’s promise to subdue enemies is, a promise that occurs in 2
Sam 7:10, immediately prior to the promise of rest in 7:11. Both Aalen and D’Angelo appeal not only to 1 Chr 17
but also to the Nathan oracle itself, thus including 2 Sam 7.
64D. Stephen Long, Hebrews. Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 2011), 83.
65Westfall, “Moses and Hebrews 3.1-6,” 188, n. 43; cf. Layton, “Christ over His House,” 473.
21
capacities. The difference, then, is not necessarily always in the required action, since both
servants and sons can seemingly be expected to perform the same tasks in some circumstances.
Rather, the emphasis becomes centered on the reasons for which and the authority by which the
servant or son acts. The servant acts with minimal authority and seeks to perform his obligations
with faithfulness; the son, however, carries greater authority in addition to the more “vested
interest” that he will have in the outcome.66
With these thoughts in mind, how might one understand the distinction specifically in
Hebrews 3 and thereby understand the manner in which Moses is portrayed as a servant? The
next section will attempt to answer this question through a discussion of the term qerapwn.
Moses as qerapwn
When the author of Hebrews states that Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a
servant, the word used for servant is qerapwn. While it is often a fruitful task to consider the
definition of keys words in a passage, the use of qerapwn provides a particularly interesting
study because Hebrews 3:5 is the only occurrence of the word in the entire New Testament.
Proposed Definitions
Scholars have made various attempts to define the meaning of the term, usually doing so
in contrast to the more common word for servant, douloj. For example, Paul Ellingworth claims
qerapwn is used instead of douloj in order to refer to a “free man offering personal service to a
superior.”67 He adds that it could refer to a steward who is over a household or a servant who is
66George Guthrie, Hebrews, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 128.
67Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 207.
22
merely a member.68 Donald Guthrie argues likewise, adding that this “personal service freely
rendered” is more tender than douloj since it does not have the tone of servility marked by
douloj.69 David Allen notes the terms’ emphasis on the free offer of service, adding also that a
qerapwn “was an honored servant in an intimate relationship with the master.”70 Still further, this
service was “performed with care and fidelity.”71 The Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich
(BDAG) lexicon supplements these interpretations with the following entry for qerapwn: “one
who renders devoted service, esp. as an attendant in a cultic setting, attendant, aide, servant.”72
Use of qerapwn in the Greek OT, Second Temple Literature, and Hebrews 3
The definitions proposed by scholars should be dependent not only on a grasp of the use
of the word not only in its one New Testament occurrence, but also on account of its usage in the
Greek Old Testament,73 Second Temple literature, and the Apostolic Fathers. Variations of the
root word qerapwn occur fifty-three times in the Greek Old Testament. A surprising twenty-five
of these are used to refer to Pharaoh’s servants between Exodus 5:21 and 14:8.74 The word is
used elsewhere with reference to Job,75 the Patriarchs,76 and Joshua77 among others. The word is
68Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews, 207.
69Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC 15 (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 101.
70David L. Allen, Hebrews, NAC 35 (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 246.
71Ibid.
72Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed.
Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), BibleWorks. v.7.
73The term Greek Old Testament is used here instead of Septuagint in order to distinguish the OT canon
from the Apocrypha, since many of the Apocryphal books are included in Septuagint editions.
74There are also two additional references to Pharaoh’s servants using qerapwn in Deut 29:1 and 34:11.
75Job 2:3; 3:19; 7:2; 19:16; 31:13; 42:7ff.
76Deut 9:27.
23
used of Moses only nine times in the Greek Old Testament.78 In each case it used as a sort of title
for Moses’ role. The emphasis on Moses’ role varies and includes reference to his service as
speaker/teacher of the law, author, mediator, and prophet.
In Second Temple literature, qerapwn occurs eleven times in the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha.79 Eight of these eleven uses are in Judith, most of which relate to the servants of
Holofernes who is chief general of Nebuchadnezzar’s army and second in command. In 4
Maccabees 12:11 the term is used to refer to the collection of God’s people who had been
mistreated by the king. In Wisdom 10:16 qerapwn alludes to Moses as the servant of the Lord
who withstood kings with wonders and signs. Finally, Wisdom 18:21 uses qerapwn to speak of
the one who was blameless, quick to act as the people’s champion, brought forth his ministry by
prayer and propitiation, withstood anger, and put an end to destruction. In all these thing he
showed himself to be the Lord’s servant.
In addition to references in the Greek Old Testament and Apocrypha, Philo uses qerapwn
thirty-seven times. As Philo’s writing is roughly a generation prior to the book of Hebrews, the
use in his writings carries some weight in understanding how the word was used at that time.
Some of Philo’s uses correspond directly to his comments on passages in the Greek Old
Testament that also use the phrase.80 Other uses may be used to support the idea that qerapwn
means one who is respected in the household. This could be a possible understanding of the uses
77Ex 33:11.
78Ex 4:10; 14:31; Num 11:11; 12:7-8; Josh 1:2; 9:2 (2x); 1 Chr 16:40.
79Jdt 2:2; 6:6; 7:16; 9:10; 10:20, 23; 11:20; 12:5; 4 Mac 12:11; Wis 10:16; 18:21
80For example, Sacr 1.12 uses Ex 4:10 and Sacr 1.69 uses Ex 8:9.
24
with respect to Joseph in light of what Layton has demonstrated about Joseph’s position as one
“over the house.”81
Yet there are numerous problems that arise when looking at how Philo uses the word.
First, with respect to the idea that it can or does refer to a steward, this becomes less certain in
light of Philo’s use of evpimelhth,j to refer to a steward of the house. To complicate the issue
further, Philo immediately uses qerapontwn to refer to typical servants.82 A more significant
issue arises with respect to the differentiation between qerapwn and douloj seen in the
definitions of the scholars above. While there is likely some semantic difference between the two
words, the manner in which Philo routinely uses the two words synonymously makes a clear
distinction difficult. For example, Philo twice refers to the servant of God in Her 1:7, yet the first
occurrence is doulon while the second use is qerapwn. Not only are the words used
synonymously at times, but Philo often uses qerapwn in the context of a purchased slave.83
Based on the use of Philo, especially as it is more contemporary to the use in Hebrews than the
Greek Old Testament and Apocryphal uses, one may be somewhat skeptical of the quite specific
definitions of the scholars above.84
81Layton, “The Steward in Ancient Israel.”
82Philo, Ios 1:211.
83Philo, Ios 1.36; Spec. 1.126; Prob. 1.100.
84I explored the use of the qerapwn in Josephus also since he is writing soon after the book of Hebrews.
However, though qerapwn is used twenty-seven times in Josephus, they are all in reference to servants without clear
contextual support about whether they are slaves or servants who freely render their service. As such, the uses in
Josephus do not lend much help in determining whether or not there is a clear distinction between qerapwn and
douloj. It is also interesting that all six uses of qerapwn in the Apostolic Fathers realate to Moses (1 Cl 4:12; 43:1;
51:3, 5; 53:5; Brn 14:4). However, these texts, especially 1 Clement, seem to be dependent on Hebrews so the use of
qerapwn with reference to Moses is understandable. For more on 1 Clements’ use of Hebrews, see Paul Ellingworth,
“Hebrews and 1 Clement : Literary Dependence or Common Tradition [reply to M Mees, "Die Hohepriester-
Theologie des Hebräerbriefes," Biblische Zeitschrift, 23.2 (1979): 262-269; Edgar Johnson Goodspeed, “First
Clement Called Forth by Hebrews,” JBL 30.2 (1911): 157-160; A. Gregory, “1 Clement: An Introduction.”
ExpTimes 117.6 (2006): 223-230; Donald Wayne Riddle, “Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of
Domitian,” JBL 43.3-4 (1924): 329-348.
25
The exploration of the use of qerapwn in the Greek Old Testament and Second Temple
literature leaves the reader with an uncertain picture of its meaning. Is it possible, then, to
understand its meaning in Hebrews 3? The answer, perhaps surprising to some, is still yes. While
the semantic range of the word is perhaps broader and less certain than some scholars allow, it is
nevertheless contextualized in two important ways. One way that the word is contextualized is
that it is brought into Hebrews from the Old Greek text of Numbers 12:7. The second means of
contextualization is the phrase eivj martu,rion.
As noted in earlier sections of the paper, Hebrews 3:5 is an intentional allusion to
Numbers 12:7. A comparison of the two accounts leaves little doubt of this intentional allusion
(see Figure 1 below). Though many commentators jump to Numbers 12:7, as early as Hebrews
3:2, Aalen and D’Angelo argue convincingly that 1 Chronicles 17 is in view in verse two, and
the Numbers passage is in the periphery until verse five. One strong reason for seeing Numbers
12 in view in verse five rather than verse two is the addition of the word qerapwn, present in both
verse five and Numbers 12:7 but absent in Hebrews 3:2.
Hebrews 3:5—kai. Mwu?sh/j me.n pisto.j evn o[lw| tw/| oi;kw| auvtou/ wj qera,pwn
Numbers 12:7—ouvc ou[twj o` qera,pwn mou Mwush/j evn o[lw| tw/| oi;kw| mou pisto,j evstin
Figure 1. Comparison of Hebrews 3:5 to Numbers 12:7.
The meaning of qerapwn and the purpose for alluding to Numbers 12:7, therefore, seem
to be closely linked. It is thus necessary briefly to consider the passage of Numbers 12:7 in order
to understand the manner in which Moses is deemed a servant there, since the manner in which
he is a servant in Numbers 12 is likely also the manner in which he is servant in Hebrews 3:5.
26
Numbers 12:7 is a statement by YHWH affirming His unique relationship with Moses in
response to the challenge of Moses’ leadership by Aaron and Miriam. Aaron and Miriam
question whether YHWH has spoken only through Moses (12:2), and YHWH responds by
calling them together and saying that while He does speak to prophets through visions, only with
Moses, his servant, who is faithful in His house, does He speak face to face (12:6-8). YHWH’s
identification of Moses as servant in both verses seven and eight suggest a close relationship
between Moses’ role as servant of YHWH and His direct, face to face contact with YHWH.
The second contextual help for understanding qerapwn in Hebrews 3:5 is the second half
of the verse. After declaring that Moses is faithful in all God’s house as a servant, the author of
Hebrews adds the phrase eivj martu,rion tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn(as a testimony to the things that
were to be spoken later). Among the many functions of eivj,85 the two that make the most
syntactical sense are purpose and reference/respect. David Allen argues for purpose, thus
implying that Moses fulfilled his servant role by “testifying to what would be said in the
future.”86 If one were to see the use in terms of reference/respect, then Moses’ would be
identified as a servant with respect to his testimony; his faithfulness as servant would be with
respect to his testimony to the things spoken later. In either case, the eivj clause contextualizes
qerapwn and shows that Moses’ faithful service was in his testifying to what was to come.
Conclusions and Implications
Based upon the many arguments and explanations presented thus far, it is both possible
and necessary to summarize some conclusions. The Old Testament portrays Moses as a prophet,
85Daniel Wallace lists eight basic uses of eivj in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An
Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 369-371.
86Allen, Hebrews, 246.
27
leader, intercessor, and servant and assigns to him the titles servant of YHWH and man of God.
Of these two titles, servant of YHWH is more common and also more central to the portrayal of
Moses as intercessor and instructor for the people. This positive view of Moses only increases in
Second Temple literature, reaching its pinnacle in Philo’s De Vita Mosis, in which he says that
Moses, though the servant of God, is “the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived”87 and in
De Somneiis where Moses seemingly spans the gap between human and divine.88 In the New
Testament literature, the veneration of Moses is tempered, but he is still portrayed in a primarily
positive light. The portrait of Moses in the New Testament is as the faithful mediator of the Old
Covenant and the greatest prophet of the Old Testament. With this background in mind, the
reader approaches the book of Hebrews with a positive view of Moses as the Old Covenant
mediator, great prophet, and intercessor and instructor for the people. Nevertheless, though
Moses was the great Old Testament prophet, he spoke of one to come to whom the people were
to listen. When Moses shows up in Hebrews 3, then, as the leader of the wilderness generation,
the emphasis is more on the unfaithfulness of the wilderness generation than it is a commentary
on Moses’ leadership. In this way it is a decidedly Deuteronomistic portrait of Moses, focusing
on the people’s sin as the reason for his being unable to enter the land (Deut 4:21) rather than his
own unbelief (Num 20:12).89
Here one arrives at the central thesis, namely the manner in which Moses is portrayed as
servant in Hebrews 3. Though an initial attempt to arrive at a specific definition of qerapwn on
87Vit Mos 1.1.
88Somn 2.189.
89This is suggested in Hebrews 3:19 when the people, rather than Moses, are the focus of unbelief—“So we
see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.”
28
the basis of the word’s common usage was unfruitful, an analysis of the word in the context of
the allusion to Numbers 12:7-8 and the phrase eivj martu,rion tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn does clarify
the issue. The author of Hebrews has alluded to Numbers 12:7-8 to remind the reader of the
unique manner in which Moses spoke to God. Unlike other prophets who had visions from God
and relayed His message, Moses received his revelation face to face. In this manner, Moses’
service is unique and sets him alongside the Son as the only ones who spoke to God face to
face.90 Similarly, Moses’ service as prophet was specifically as the one who would testify to the
things that were to come, namely Christ. Thus, Moses’ role as servant in the passage does more
than simply provide a contrast between what was expected of a servant and what was expected of
a son, though this is also in view. Rather, the primary function is to parallel verse three: just as
“Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses,” so also Jesus has been counted
worthy as a greater prophet than Moses because he is also the Son. He is not only the mediator of
the covenant and the witness to its end, he is himself the end, the goal, and the climax of the New
Covenant in a way that Moses never was. Moses was the mediator and witness of the Old
Covenant, which had as its end, goal, and climax the same thing as the New Covenant—Jesus
Christ.
At least two significant implications arise from these conclusions about the servant motif
and Moses in Hebrews 3. First, D’Angelo is likely right in her argument that “the typos that
Moses saw on the mountain was the teleiosis of Christ, the passage of Christ across the veil, and
the same vision that conformed him to the glory and the suffering of Christ.”91 When the glory of
90Acts 3:13-26 may confirm this understanding. In the very passage where Jesus is shown to be the prophet
like Moses who spoke to the Lord face to face (Acts 3:22//Deut 18:18), two references to Jesus as servant (v. 13, 26)
bracket the discussion. In recording Peter’s sermon, Luke seems to be emphasizing that Jesus himself is a servant on
account of his face to face relationship with God as His prophet.
91D’Angelo, Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews, 14.
29
YHWH passed by Moses, proclaiming His name and His character, what Moses beheld was the
glory of God’s Son and Messiah. Moses saw the “end of the law,” as the Apostle Paul would say
(Rom 10:4)—Jesus Christ. John Calvin argues similarly, asserting that Moses rendered “a
testimony to the Gospel, the publication of which was not as yet to be made; for it is doubtless
evident, that the end and completion of the Law is that perfection of wisdom contained in the
Gospel.”92
A second implication relates to James Swetnam’s argument that Moses’ witness to tw/n
lalhqhsome,nwn “resumes the theme of God speaking in 1:1.”93 The book opens with the
statement that God spoke (lalh,saj) in various times and various ways, but in these last days He
has spoken (evla,lhsen) through His Son. If Swetnam is right in his assessment, then the prophetic
message of the servant Moses in 3:5 parallels the opening of the book.94 Though the prophets,
like Moses, testified to the one to come, they pale in comparison to the testimony that comes
through the Son himself. The rest of the book of Hebrews seems to bear out this interpretation,
seen most explicitly in 12:18-29. In these verses, Moses speaks of how he trembles with fear on
the mountain. Jesus Christ is said to be the mediator of a new covenant “that speaks a better
word than the blood of Abel” (12:24). The author then exhorts his readers, much like he does at
the beginning of chapter two, not to refuse him who is speaking, “for if they did not escape when
they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who
92John Calvin, “Hebrews,” in Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, James, II Peter, Jude, Calvin’s Commentaries
Volume 22 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005), 81.
93James Swetnam, “tw/n lalhqhsome,nwn in Hebrews 3, 5,” Biblica 90.1 (2009): 93.
94John Calvin recognizes this link to the beginning of the book, stating that “God formerly spoke at
different times and in various ways by the prophets, but he deferred to the fullness of time the complete revelation of
the Gospel.” Calvin, “Hebrews,” 81.
30
warns from heaven” (12:25). The author argues that if, as Hebrews 3 shows, the people did not
escape when they refused the message of God through His servant Moses, how much less will
they escape if they reject the message from the Son himself, who is not only the servant and
messenger but also the object of the testimony.
Conclusion
Hebrews 3:1-6 plays an important role in the book of Hebrews, and yet few have
explored the role that Moses plays beyond being a foil to Christ. While Moses is both implicitly
and explicitly (3:3) worthy of less glory than the Son, Jesus Christ, he is nonetheless an
important figure. Far from this being a passage that denigrates Moses by attacking the veneration
of Moses in Second Temple literature, this passage portrays Moses as the greatest of all prophets
save Jesus. He is the mediator of the covenant, the leader of the house of Israel, and one who
testified to the Coming Son. Nevertheless, the wilderness generation did not listen. The author of
Hebrews has emphasized Moses’ prophetic service for the specific purpose of showing the
danger that his readers are in of neglecting a greater message. If his readers reject the witness of
Moses as the wilderness generation did, how much less will they escape if they reject the witness
of the Son himself, the one who was the object of Moses’ testimony (Heb 3:1-19//Heb 12:18-29).
We would be wise, then, to heed the warnings of the author and not harden our hearts as in the
rebellion (3:7, 15). We would also be wise to be “grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be
shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a
consuming fire” (Heb 12:28-29).
31
Bibliography
Commentaries
Allen, David L. Hebrews. The New American Commentary 35. Nashville: B & H Publishing
Group, 2010.
Attridge, H.W. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989.
Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Revised Edition. The New International Commentary on
the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Calvin, John. “Hebrews.” In Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, James, II Peter, Jude. Calvin’s
Commentaries Volume 22, v-448. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005.
Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New
International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Volume 15. Leicester: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1990.
Guthrie, George. Hebrews. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
_____. “Hebrews.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by
G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson, 919-995. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Hagner, Donald A. Hebrews. New International Biblical Commentary 14. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1990.
Heen, Erik M., and Philip D.W. Krey, eds. Hebrews. Ancient Christian Commentary on
Scripture, New Testament X. Downers Grove: IVP, 2005.
Hughes, Philip E. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Hebrews: A Commentary. New Testament Library. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Koester, Craig R. Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor
Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Lane, William L. Hebrews. 2 Vols. Word Biblical Commentary 47A, 47 B. Dallas: Word Books,
1991.
Long, D. Stephen. Hebrews. Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2011.
Long, Thomas G. Hebrews. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1997.
32
McKnight, Edgar, and Christopher Church. Hebrews-James. Smyth & Helwys Bible
Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2004.
Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. The
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1948.
Owen, John. An Exposition of Hebrews: Hebrews 1:1-4:11. Volume Two. Marshalltown, DE:
The National Foundation for Christian Education, 1969.
Spicq, Ceslas. L’Épître aux Hébreux. 2 vols. Revised Edition. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1957.
Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. Second
Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Witherington, Ben, III. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2007.
Journal Articles/Essays
Aalen, Sverre. “‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in Kingdom of God in the Gospels.” New Testament Studies
8.3 (Apr 1962): 215-240.
Allen, E.L. “Jesus and Moses in the New Testament.” Expository Times 67.4 (1956): 104-106.
Allison, D.C. “Jesus and Moses.” Expository Times 98 (1987): 203-205.
Auffret, Pierre. “Essai sur la structure litteraire et l’interpretation d’Hebrex 3, 1-6.” New
Testament Studies 26.3 (1980): 380-396.
Bacon, Benjamin W. “The Doctrine of Faith in Hebrews, James, and Clement of Rome.” Journal
of Biblical Literature 19.1 (1900): 12-21.
Brown, Raymond. “Pilgrimage in Faith: The Christian Life in Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal
of Theology 28.1 (Fall 1985): 28-35.
Bruce, F.F. “The Structure and Argument of Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28.1
(Fall 1985): 6-12.
Clements, Ronald E. “The Use of the Old Testament in Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal of
Theology 28.1 (Fall 1985): 36-45.
Ellingworth, Paul. “Hebrews and 1 Clement : Literary Dependence or Common Tradition [reply
to M Mees, "Die Hohepriester-Theologie des Hebräerbriefes." Biblische Zeitschrift, 23.2
(1979): 262-269.
Enns, Peter. “Creation and Re-Creation: Psalm 95 and Its Interpretation in Hebrews 3:1-4:13.”
Westminster Theological Journal 55.2 (1993): 255-280.
33
Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. “First Clement Called Forth by Hebrews.” Journal of Biblical
Literature 30.2 (1911): 157-160.
Gräβer, Erich von. “Mose und Jesus: Zur Auslegugn von Hebr 3.1-6.” Zeitschrift für die
neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 75.1-2 (1984): 2-23.
Gregory, A. “1 Clement: An Introduction.” Expository Times 117.6 (2006): 223-230.
Guthrie, George. “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research.” Currents in
Biblical Research 1 (2003): 271-294.
Harding, S.F. “Christ as Greater than Moses in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis I-II.” SP 31
(1997): 397-400.
Hegedus, Tim. “Midrash in the Letter of Barnabas.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 37.1 (2007): 20-
26.
Hughes, Philip E. “The Christology of Hebrews.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 28.1 (Fall
1985): 19-27.
Jones, Peter Rhea. “The Figure of Moses as a Heuristic Device for Understanding the Pastoral
Intent of Hebrews.” Review and Expositor 76.1 (1979): 95-107.
Layton, Scott C. “Christ over His House (Hebrews 3.6) and Hebrew tybh-l[ rva.” New
Testament Studies 37 (1991): 473-477.
_____. “The Steward in Ancient Israel: A Study of Hebrew (‘aser) ‘al-habbayit in its Near
Eastern Setting.” JBL 109 (1990): 633-649.
Mees, Michael. “Die Hohepriester-Theologie des Hebräerbriefes im Vergleich mit dem Ersten
Clemensbrief." Biblische Zeitschrift 22.1 (1978): 115-124.
Miller, Patrick D., Jr. “‘Moses My Servant’: The Deuteronomic Portrait of Moses.”
Interpretation 41.3 (1987): 245-255.
Moiser, J. “Moses and Elijah.” Expository Times 96 (1985): 216-217.
O'Hagan, Angelo P. “Early Christian Exegesis Exemplified from the Epistle of Barnabas.”
Australian Biblical Review 11.4 (D 1963): 33-40.
Pamment, M. “Moses and Elijah in the Story of the Transfiguration.” Expository Times 92
(1981): 338-339.
Riddle, Donald Wayne. “Hebrews, First Clement, and the Persecution of Domitian.” Journal of
Biblical Literature 43.3-4 (1924): 329-348.
34
Schreiber, Stefan. “Eine neue vario lectio zu Hebr 3,4b?” Biblische Zeitschrift 44.2 (2000): 252-
253.
Scott, Brett R. “Jesus’ Superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6.” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (Apr-Jn
1998): 201-210.
Swetnam, James. “Twn lalhqhsomenwn in Hebrews 3,5.” Biblica 90.1 (2009): 93-100.
Welborn, L. L. “On the Date of First Clement.” Biblical Research 29(1984): 35-54.
Whitfield, Bryan J. “The Three Joshuas of Hebrews 3 and 4.” Perspectives in Religious Studies
37.1 (2010): 21-35.
Books/Book Chapters
Allen, David. Lukan Authorship of Hebrews. NAC Studies in Bible and Theology, Volume 8.
Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.
Bauckham, Richard, et al., eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Beegle, Dewey M. Moses, The Servant of Yahweh. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
D’Angelo, Mary Rose. Moses in the Letter to the Hebrews. SBL Dissertation Series 42.
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979.
de Silva, David. Despising Shame: Honor Discourse and Community Maintenance in the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Enns, Peter. “The Interpretation of Psalm 95 in Hebrews 3:1-4:13.” In Early Christian
Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, 352-363. Edited by Craig A. Evans and James
A. Sanders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Guthrie, George. The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. Leiden: Brill, 1994;
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. Missoula, MT:
Scholars Press, 1977.
Laansma, Jon. I Will Give You Rest: The Rest Motif in the New Testament with Special Reference
to Mt 11 and Heb 3-4. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1997.
Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. New Testament Theology.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
Meeks, Wayne A. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1967.
35
Rankin, David. From Clement to Origen: The Social and Historical Context of the Church
Fathers. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2006.
Seid, Timothy W. “Synkrisis in Hebrews 7: The Rhetorical Structure and Strategy.” In The
Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference, 322-
347. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D.L. Stamps, Journal for the Study of the New
Testament Supplement Series 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Spina, Frank Anthony. “Moses and Joshua: Servants of the Lord as Purveyors of the Word.” In
Go Figure! Figuration in Biblical Interpretation, 65-92. Edited by Stanley D. Walters.
Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2008.
Vanhoye, Albert. La Structure Littéraire de L'épître Aux Hébreux. Second Edition. Paris:
Dessclée de Brouwer, 1976.
Westfall, Cynthia. A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews: The Relationship between
Form and Meaning. London: T & T Clark, 2005.
Westfall, Cynthia. “Moses and Hebrews 3.1-6: Approach or Avoidance?” In Christian-Jewish
Relations Through the Centuries, 175-201. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Brook W.R.
Pearson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970.
Dictionary Entries
Beegle, Dewey M. “Moses.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4: K-N, 909-918. Edited by
David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Gillman, Florence Morgan. “Moses: New Testament.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4:
K-N, 918-920. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Guthrie, George. “Old Testament in Hebrews.” In Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its
Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 841-850. Downers Grove:
IVP Academic, 1997.
Hoffmeier, James K. “Moses.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Fully Revised
and Illustrated in Four Volumes. Volume 3: K-P, 415-425. Edited by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Neusner, Jacob, and William Scott Green, eds. “Moses.” In Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical
Period: 450 BCE to 600 CE . Volume 2: J-Z, 436-438. New York: Simon & Schuster
Macmillan, 1996.
_____. “Moses, Assumption of.” In Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 BCE to
600 CE . Volume 2: J-Z, 439. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996.
36
_____. “Moses, Testament of.” In Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period: 450 BCE to 600
CE . Volume 2: J-Z, 439. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan, 1996.
Priest, John F. “Moses, Testament of.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Volume 4: K-N, 920-922.
Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Van Seters, John. “Moses.” In Encyclopedia of Religion. Second Edition. Volume 9, 6200-6204.
Edited by Lindsay Jones. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2005.
Greek Grammars/Lexicons
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000. BibleWorks. v.7.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Zerwick, Max. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Third Revised Edition.
Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1988.
_____. Biblical Greek. English Edition. Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1963.
Primary Sources
Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric. Edited and Translated by Hugh Lawson-Tancred. New York:
Penguin, 1992.
Josephus. The Complete Works of Josephus. BibleWorks 7.0.
Philo. The Complete Works of Philo. BibleWorks 7.0.